Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21969037›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2011

The early bird catches the worm: new technologies for the Caenorhabditis elegans toolkit.

Xiao Xu, Stuart K Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Microfluidic-AssistedCyborg and bionic systems (Washington, D.C.) · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Nematodes ultrastructure: complex systems and processes.Journal of parasitic diseases : official organ of the Indian Society for Parasitology · 2016
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. All the microbiology nematodes can teach us.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Neuronal aging: learning from C. elegans.Journal of molecular signaling · 2013
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Xiao XuCancer Biology Program and Department of Developmental Biology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
Stuart K Kim

Funding

Translational Oncology Research Program (Project-005)P30CA124435 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Melinda L. Telli · 2007 to 2026
$71.4M
Leveraging innovative technologies in basic and clinical cancer researchT32CA009302 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI LAURA D ATTARDI, Aaron M Newman · 1985 to 2026
$19.1M
Mechanisms of Aging in C. elegansR01AG025941 · NIA · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI DAVIS, RONALD WAYNE · 2007 to 2017
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA124435NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009302NIA NIH HHS R01 AG025941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The inherent simplicity of Caenorhabditis elegans and its extensive genetic toolkit make it ideal for studying complex biological processes. Recent developments further increase the usefulness of the worm, including new methods for: altering gene expression, altering physiology using optogenetics, manipulating large numbers of worms, automating laborious processes and processing high-resolution images. These developments both enhance the worm as a model for studying processes such as development and ageing and make it an attractive model in areas such as neurobiology and behaviour.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansCell LineageFlow CytometryGene ExpressionGenetic EngineeringMicrofluidicsModels, AnimalMolecular Sequence Data

Identifiers

PMID21969037
PMCPMC4719766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.